Currently Online 
| haxxiy said: I'll admit I'm not a fan of the generic style most people use for their prompts (you know, both that vague "digital art" look and the cartoon one with thick lines), but this article on the Smithsonian reminded me a lot of the current debate about generative AI in art. |
Playing recorded music in movie theaters is very different from generative art.
The music is still written and performed by musicians.
Next to that is, movies were already a 'replacement' of live theater (which still employs live orchestras btw)
But most important is that it was a practical solution to scale up movie showings.
(How much would a movie ticket cost with a full orchestra playing, voice actors and sound effect artists in the box)
Movies, music, sound effects,. it's all created by humans, then recorded and duplicated.
Live performances go on.
AI takes those recordings and mixes them around to create something 'new'. Like a search query translated into generative art. It's like taking the Mona Lisa and Starry night, combining them together and sell it as new art.
Maybe it's a new art form, maybe it's plagiarism, it's not replacing anyone though.
You could say the same about DJs, they take other people's music, mix and alter the tracks to create a new set people pay to listen to. It's a new art form, but they do have to pay the rights to the music they use! That's the issue with generative AI art, it takes other people's work as base without license fees. No issue for personal use, it's an issue when you start selling it as your own.
